As the warmer temperatures settle in (finally!), it typically signals “shorts weather.” With that comes the annual realization for many of us that, OMG! My legs are white! It is also the time of year that the anti-indoor tanning zealots fire up and hit the political aisles.
[gap height=”15″]
To wit, South Carolina – home of some of our country’s finest beaches, with Myrtle Beach being one of them. And … drum roll … here comes the news report.
[gap height=”15″]
“SC teens who want tans would have to go outside under proposed tanning-bed bill.”
[gap height=”15″]
“Rates of skin cancer in South Carolina have been on the rise over the past decade. This year, an estimated 1,810 South Carolinians will be diagnosed with melanoma.”
[gap height=”15″]
While this statement is accurate, they conveniently forgot to mention that the overwhelming majority of those diagnosed are older males, typical to rates across the country.
[gap height=”15″]
The report featured testimony from a University of South Carolina student who told legislators that she knew several girls who started tanning in high school and worries that they may someday have to have large portions of their once-healthy skin cut from their bodies. “It makes me sad to think someday these trips to the tanning bed may cost them not just their looks, but their lives.” Really? It’s not due to basking in the sun on Myrtle Beach, at the pool or on the USC campus? C’mon!
[gap height=”15″]
Well, these learned Legislators voted 2-1, to advance the bill to the full SC House Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee, recommending its passage. And guess what? Not one business testified. It is not known if any were even asked to do so!
[gap height=”15″]
There was one pragmatic lawmaker who stood against the bill. Rep. Jonathan Hill (R) stated that the key to protecting teens from skin cancer lies in informed parental consent and enforcing current state regulations.
[gap height=”15″]
Well, you are correct, sir, and I compliment you on sharing the common-sense approach. Hill stated, “It simply isn’t possible for us to regulate away any danger of ever getting cancer. We’re not going to end cancer by regulation.” Amen!
[gap height=”15″]
Now what report is complete without a bit of research? Well, here it is:
[gap height=”15″]
The good ol’ American Academy of Dermatology reports that there were an estimated 263,000 cases of skin cancer that could be attributed to indoor tanning, according to a new study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy. Directly related to indoor tanning? How? You mean that you have confirmed that these folks never, ever, spent any time in natural sunlight? They go on to state that these cases amounted to $343.1 million in medical costs and a total economic loss of $127 billion over the lifetime of the patients affected. From, ahem, just indoor tanning?
[gap height=”15″]
They brought in a health economist, Hugh Waters from the University of Carolina, to state his position. Wait a minute! There is no University of Carolina! Well, nonetheless, this fella says “something needs to be done given the staggering costs of indoor tanning, both in terms of the economics and the health impacts.” Staggering? I’m still trying to find the University of Carolina!
Team IST searches for erroneous, suspect or negative reporting by the media that adversely impacts the tanning industry. Reports such as these have plagued tanning businesses for decades. Although the media sources will seldom admit a falsehood and print a retraction, IST offers these well-crafted responses to the negative reports that can be shared with your customers and potential customers, alike.
